If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Let's break down where the Probable Cause Affidavit goes wrong. First, the affidavit makes assertions without providing a basis for the assertions. For instance, the Affidavit states: "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." However, the affidavit doesn't explain the basis for the conclusion that "Zimmerman confronted Martin." Did a witness say they saw Zimmerman confront Martin? Did Zimmerman admit to confronting Martin? On what basis does the investigating officer swear under oath that he has reason to believe that Zimmerman confronted Martin?

Secondly, the affidavit does not even pretend to state a fact establishing that the shooting was committed with "ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent." At most, the affidavit claims that Zimmerman said the words "these f------ punks" at some point prior to the shooting. Is the prosecution basing its murder charge on the phrase "f------ punks?"
Without even a single sentence of the affidavit claiming that Zimmerman pulled the trigger with "ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent," it is hard to imagine how the prosecution, in good faith, can file charges for Second Degree Murder.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the affidavit omits material evidence, as well as misstates a known fact. For instance, the affidavit claims that a police dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin. However, in the recorded phone conversation, the police dispatcher merely tells Zimmerman: "we don't need you to do that." While this may seem like a minor discrepancy, it is clearly inaccurate to state that the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin. At a minimum, this misstatement of fact evinces a disregard for accuracy. What's worse, the affidavit never makes mention of the 911 caller, who claimed that (1) Zimmerman yelled for help; and (2) that Martin as on top of Zimmerman, "beating up" on Zimmerman. While the affidavit claims that Zimmerman "admitted [to] shooting Martin," the affidavit omits that Zimmerman claimed to have shot Martin in self-defense.

These omissions potentially render the Probable Cause Affidavit legally insufficient, and entitle Zimmerman to an evidentiary hearing on the sufficiency of probable cause. As the Florida Supreme Court held in Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995), if omitted material is added to an affidavit and thus defeats probable cause; and if the omission resulted from intentional or reckless police conduct with the intent to deceive, then a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The woefully inadequate Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that the prosecution is skating on thin ice. Manslaughter charges would be far more appropriate.

Actually, there's a lot of truth at that website. Having analyzed the tape myself and having culled through a ton of news to put together a timeline, I have a lot of respect for their timeline.

Sorry if you can't seem to understand how important timelines are. You'll see during the trial.

They jump to a whole lot of conclusions without basis in fact, not the least of which is this rather ludicrous claim that Zimmerman doubled-back all the way around the building and then caught Martin nearly where he was in the first place. More absurd is that he allegedly did this in something like a minute and a half. No way. Their claim is crap.

.....
The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
.....

On March 8, 1971, my friends from grad school and I drove from Purdue in my yellow VW bug to watch a large screen presentation of the first Ali-Frazier fight.

Given the imperatives of student poverty, we headed not south to Indianapolis, which was forty miles closer, but north to Gary, which was five dollars cheaper. The moment we walked into the theater, however, I understood what the others did not: five bucks or no, Gary was a mistake.

Other than the fifty or so hardhats sitting together in makeshift bleachers by the exit door, we were about the only white people in the joint...

...Still, the fight proved to be worth the risk. It was both brutal and brilliant as only great fights can be. Going into the fifteenth, it seemed to all of us too close to call.

“OK,” I said to my friends between rounds, “we’re out of here.” They thought me daft and resisted. Sharing some of my Newark experiences, I explained patiently that if Ali lost a fight that the crowd expected him to win, there would be hell to pay, and we’d likely do the paying.

“But we’re for Ali,” my friends protested. We’re for Ali? How had it come to this? I wondered. How could so many seemingly smart Americans be so thoroughly naïve, so utterly delusional?

Forty years later, I am still wondering. Today, my liberal friends tell me, “We’re for Trayvon.” They remain seated, however, in that metaphorical Gary auditorium.

They are the white people who live in the cities, who gentrify neighborhoods, who take public transportation, who attend jazz concerts and blues festivals, and who send their children to urban public schools. If the racial embers they now so casually fan burst into flames, they will be the ones who get burned.

George Zimmerman is their Joe Frazier. Although he is as Hispanic as Barack Obama is black—more actually, as he was raised by his ethnic parent and speaks her language fluently—he has been deemed, in the memorable words of the New York Times, a “white Hispanic.”

As in Frazier’s case, this has less to do with what Zimmerman looks like than the oppressor role he has been assigned in the media’s multicultural morality play.

The play’s basic message is this: despite our black president, “nothing has changed.” Racist cops still conspire with thuggish vigilantes to kill young black men--Emmett Till all over again.

To assure the play’s proper outcome, the media have had to take some dramatic license with the facts, none more visually misleading than the casting of an elfin 12 year-old in the role of the 6-2, 17 year-old Trayvon Martin.....

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting

Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose, according to police reports made public today.

The reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches...

...Two police officers reported that when they arrived at the scene of the shooting, Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face. One wrote that his "facial area was bloodied," and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass.

"Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head," Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote.

Another officer wrote, "I saw that Zimmerman's face was bloodied and it appeared to me that his nose was broken."

Witnesses, whose names were redacted from the report, also lent support to Zimmerman's version of what happened.

"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."

A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.....

...The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin during a close struggle.

Martin's autopsy report also revealed that there was a quarter-inch by half-inch abrasion on the left fourth finger of Martin, another indication of a possible struggle.

The teen, who lived in Miami, was in Sanford while serving a suspension for a bag of marijuana being discovered in his possession. Martin had THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood on the night of his death, according to the autopsy. His family told ABC News that it was "trace amounts" of THC.

END OF STORY

Oh, and now the evidence seems to support Zimmerman, he is no longer "White" or a "White Hispanic":

....Zimmerman, 28, is a multi-racial Hispanic man who volunteered for the neighborhood watch committee who claimed that he shot Martin in self-defense after the 6-foot tall, 160 pound teenager knocked him to the ground, banged his head against the ground and went for Zimmerman's gun....

The reason I ask is, Trayvon was shot at 7:17pm local time. Trayvon is on video from the 7-11 at approx. 6:23pm local time. Was the store that far away, or was Trayvon "casing" houses on his way back from the store?